Rangitikei Advocate. FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 8769, 22 March 1907, Page 2

Rangitikei Advocate. FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

THOSE who read our remarks on the | recent laud gamble at Poliaugina will j be interested in some revelations rei cently made before the Marlborough 1 Land Board. It appears that at: a j recent ballot a section was drawn |by a Christclmrch bicycle agent | named Saville, who was not a \ practical farmer, and he was allowed I io join in his tenancy another Ghrist- \ chtircli resident who, however, found S it impossible to dispose of his bnsil ness so as to reside at Flaxbourne, l and the partners therefore asked \ iho Board to allow them to transfer t tho section to aMr F. Sbarpe, The • latter, who apparently intends to use j the land, explained to the Board that i lie was paying about £4OO for the j goodwill and improvements, the hitter being worth £2OO, though the !' luugor valued them at £IOO, and iie thought the consideration reasonable. He had been an unsuccessful candidate at the ballot. In other words, the man who intended to use the land was prevented from obtaining it, and for the privilege of using it has had to pay the bicycle agent between £2OO and £3OO for the : 'goodwill.'' After considerable disi cussion it was agreed to recommend j the Minister to approve the transfer, i Two members voted against tins,. and the secretary rightly pointed out; ! that the injustice of giving a trans-. | fer consisted principally in the preclusion of the chance of other applicants of getting the land at the original rental. He also said the | goodwill of £IOO or £3OO was being; S added without just cause. But the ' I bicycle agent who speculated gets his [ £2OO, and no doubt blesses the MinisI reria'l methods of 4 *''promoting settlement," while the working settler starts .operations /with an additional I handicap of £2OO. This transaction j is a fair sample of the majority connected with the ballot system.

- THE education of the judgment '■ is undoubtedly one of the most important objects at which the educator can aim, but it is one on which .stress is very rarely laid. As a consequence, most people rarely ' ; acquire the facility of distinguishing between facts and mere opinions, rud never attain the'power cf weigh- | ing evidence, which is the necessary ! v;fo'iminar.v to the formation of eor- \ reet views. Accustomed to dispense ] with 'evidence and to accept asscriiion, they cor.se to recognise the difference beweert truth and falsei i.ood, or between ignorance and j knowledge. Those whose judgement j lias been trained are, conscious j that there , are two sides to every j question, and that a subject of whatj ever nature is more likely t'j be nu- ! dorstood by those wiio have studied i it than by those who have not. They [ Lave to some degree at least an | appreciation ,of ,tho value of knowj ledge and a willingness to be guided iby its conclusions, while the unl trained, on tho whole, prefer to be (guided by the conclusions.of ignor- ! a;ice, especially when they are eu--1 forced by bawling or repeatedly i pressed on the attention by adveritisement. Under a system of popular suffrage it is of J the greatest importance that people should take some trouble to form opinions of their own, but j they seem, as a rule, to prefer to take their views as they buy their patent medicines—-from those who neglect no opportunity to prish their nostrums. j A CONTROVERSY is going on at, I present as to whether the intention jof the legislators who passed the i Arbitration Act was that imprisouI meiit should follow the n. n-payment i of iinos inflicted <>u workmen, for ! having struck, or on employers for having broken the conditions of award. We apparently cannot expect members of the House to understand Hi-"! effect of the Bills they pass, and ,

their intentions one way or the othe;

arc of little importance in this case, as the interpretation placed on the

Act by the Law Court is that men who are unwilling or unable to pay 'the fines imposed must go to prison. It is argued by some that the intention could not have possibly been to inflict imprisonment on strikers, as in case of a big strike it might be necessary to imprison hundreds of men. Unless the law was meant to bo an absolute dead letter so: far as tho men were concerned it'.is obvious that it must have been meant to impose a severe penalty in order to prevent strikes, and it is apparent that to be fined £5 and to be let off ou the ground of inability to pay is riD very severe deterrent. Tho position lias, however, now ■ been cleared np and everyone in, the country knows that' strikers or em-plovers■wltfrfiiil.to'-pW'.-tho fines i,m- : posed by the Court must gi< ro gaol.

if .Ministers'' consider that- vheflaw could not be carried out in face'of a large number of strikers,' now is the time for them to amend it, as it is . of no value to keep , a weapon which I is t,oo dangerous ' to use.'■'.'• it is | doubtful whether "public- opinion would support • the imprisonment of j a number of workers, especially if they appeared to have right on their side. aud^.therefore Jit is desirable

that some other scheme should be introduced. We confefcs that it is hard to imagine any proposal which would bi eliective and yet secure popular approval, aud wc arc therefoie driven to the couclu«iou that the penal clauses of the Act aro impossible of enforcement except Jliu the most favourable circumstances. Unfortunately, if the penal clauses are yalueless-rthe. Act is practically iricre:\vasto paper. ; <-■